Search age:

Search in:

Risk to insulation installers rated low

A senior legal advisor rated the risk of installer injury or death in the Rudd government's home insulation program as "less than unlikely" before its rollout.

Four men died working under the program that's also been blamed for more than 100 house fires.

A royal commission into the troubled scheme has heard how a legal risk plan rated installers injuring or killing others as a more likely outcome than installers dying on the job.

David Hoitink, a legal advisor assisting the insulation program, sent the plan to a federal environment department staffer two months before the program's July 1 2009 rollout.

Advertisement

"The number one risk identified in this document is the possibility of an installer injuring or killing people in the course of installing installation," Mr Hoitink's statement to the inquiry read.

The risk of an installer injuring or killing someone was assessed as "unlikely" but Mr Hoitink said he believed it was a greater risk than installers suffering fatal injuries themselves.

Under-cross examination on Monday, Mr Hoitink agreed the legal risk plan rated the possibility of installer death as "less than unlikely".

He said the document was based on existing risk assessment material in the department and outlined what he perceived as the program's major legal risks.

He thought installer death or injury would be unlikely to lead to legal action against the Commonwealth.

"I didn't think there was a big risk of them suing us unless they didn't have insurance," he said.

Mr Hoitink also believed the risk of an installer causing injury or death had been addressed through skill competency requirements designed to minimise the risk of injury.

The royal commission also heard on Monday how Insulation Australia board member Warrick Batt warned then environment minister Peter Garrett about the risk of house fires before the announcement of the home insulation program.

Mr Batt, the managing director of insulation company Autex, said he outlined the risk in a letter on February 4 2009, after Mr Garrett visited one of the company's manufacturing plants in New Zealand.

The only response he received was a courtesy letter from Mr Garrett four months later, he said.